Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
his miranda rights, read miranda rights just getting that as you were wrapping up. adam housley live in boston. adam, thank you. investigators are furiously trying to track down the terrorism connection to this case. and they are focusing on a trip, the older brother made last year. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is here tonight with an update on that. good evening, catherine. >> thank you, bret. some of the most compelling evidence and preliminary evidence comes from surveillance video and one eyewitness during that carjacking thursday night before a shootout with police one of the brothers said, quote: did you hear about the boston explosion? i did that. court records filed monday show the tsarnaev brothers walked into boylston street together 11 minutes before the explosions, each with a backpack. they split up. one heading for the finish line and the other toward the forum restaurant, the site of the second explosion. 30 seconds before the first blast. the started fidgeting with cell phone after the blast almost everyone turned around, quote: apparent bewil
gathering purposes since he's been president. when we read these people their miranda rights and give them a lawyer the only way you can gather intelligence is if the terror suspect and the lawyer will allow you to do so. intelligence gathering through plea bargaining is not going to make us safe. jenna: so we spoke to a former member of the fbi on our show yesterday that seems to not have a problem with miranda rights, that is their opinion. we'll see what they get as far as information from this one suspect. >> can i mention something. jenna: please. >> i don't have a problem with miranda rights. this man can only be tried in federal court. he's never eligible for military commissions. a first year law student could convict this person. what i'm worried about is what does he know about future attacks? he's telling us that his brother was the bad guy, he's sort of just along for the ride. they had no international connections. guess what, he's down-playing his involvement. what i am suggesting is that we use the national security legal system where we can interview him without a lawyer to
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5